Changes in quality of life following admission to palliative care units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of palliative care is to improve the quality of life (QOL) of people with a terminal illness. Previous studies of the impact of hospice/palliative care have documented improvement in physical and psychological symptoms, but not in overall QOL, due in part to the difficulties of measuring QOL. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) was developed to assess QOL in persons with advanced illness. MQOL scores were determined on admission and 7-8 days later for sequential eligible and willing patients admitted to five palliative care units. These 88 patients represented 8% of those admitted to the units during the study period. Following the final MQOL completion, patients were interviewed and asked to describe the nature of the changes in QOL they had experienced since admission. Significant improvements were found in the MQOL total score and subscale scores reflecting physical, psychological and existential well-being. In the interviews patients indicated that they had experienced changes in physical, emotional and interpersonal status, in spiritual outlook, and in their preparation for death. They also described the impact of the palliative care unit environment. This is the first study to demonstrate that hospice/palliative care can improve existential well-being in addition to psychological and physical symptoms. It provides evidence in the patients' own words that improvements in QOL go beyond symptom control following admission to a palliative care unit. However, the study results are generalizable only to those few patients admitted who are well enough to complete a questionnaire 1 week after admission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".